|
|
Daan B
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 5153
|
|
Review Date: Aug 18, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, size, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Weird AF problems made it unusable
|
|
I got this one used for a couple of bucks.
It showed two problems on both my 1Ds3 and 5D2:
1) I had to micro adjust the AF on both bodies. But at MFD it needed no MA, at medium distances it needed +8-10MA and at infinity it needed +15MA.
2) When using the lens in portrait mode, I only got hazy unsharp results. No matter what MA values I tried. Using the lens in landscape mode generated sharp results at the correct focusing distances/MA values.
I liked the weight, size and price of this lens, but if it can't focus...
Maybe I had bought me a "lemon". Luckily I could return the lens to its previous owner.
|
|
 Aug 18, 2009
|
|
.tom.U.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2009
Location: Hungary
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 4, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, f2.8, size, filter size( has more better than canon 24-70 2.8 or sigma 24-70 2.8, it's only 67mm:))
|
|
Cons:
|
maybe :
build quality - should be better
AF - should be more accurate in low light, and i need FTM:(
|
|
For it's price the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is a bargain, excellent image quality, especially when you stop down until f4.
Quite sharp at wide open mainly in the centre area, good for portrait.
More better than it's competitors from canon in the same price line.
I have bought as used half year ago, and i'm absolutely satisfied with it. I'm not professional just hobby photographer.
In sharpness is almost the same than the 24-70 2.8 from canon L grade.
Ok, the canon has more fast and accurate af and more better build quality and maybe better color, but look at the price tag.
it heavy, bulky, looks like the brick compared to tamron's 28-75 2.8 witch is only ~500 gr
For pro works i would recommend the C 24-70 2.8 because of its build quality. But is you are a hobby photographer like me and want a fast walkaround lens with excellent image quality it is your lens.
|
|
|
Aug 4, 2009
|
|
overgod
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 2, 2009
Location: Romania
Posts: 32
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, light, fast focus in good light
|
|
Cons:
|
sometimes misses focus
|
|
I bought this lens a week ago. Did some outdoor shots, and some studio shots as well. I don`t know if its just my lens or its a general problem, but sometimes the lens misses focus in moderate to low light, or i am moving just a bit and that is the cause off misfocus, but it didn`t happen to me with other lenses.(need to test this out on a tripod, but it happened quite often. :|
When it does get the focus right, (most of the shots  ) then this lens is incredibly sharp, even on 2.8. A friend of mine has a sigma 24-70 2.8 the older one, and that is just horrible on 2.8, but this lens is surprisingly sharp. I use it on a DX so i get sharper edges then an FX so i wont talk about that.
Build is nice, not to light, not to heavy, seems solid, i like the texture and the material on the focus and zoom rings.
I don`t have any similar lenses to compare it to so this review is just based what i think about the lens. I am always aiming for the highest quality images, compared to the kit lens its just heaven if you are on a tight budget. Even the occasional misfocus does not bather me for this price.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2009
|
|
saxologist
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Jul 12, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Love the weight and nice feel
Lens cap awesome (pinch type)
color contrast!
|
|
Cons:
|
manual focus ring spins worst thing
|
|
Update: I have owned the lens and shot it now for several months. I used it indoors (auditorium) and many outdoors. The lens continues to amaze me with the IQ and color contrast. Love the 2.8 and Bokeh! So far no issues. Tack sharp! I don't use my other much anymore except when needing far reach (70-200 f4 ISL). I received confirmation from Tamron that I am now registered and have a warranty number, and got a pin from them. Love the front lens cap...
No problems thus far with hunting or lens creep.
I am thinking of trying the 17-50 tammy....would trade my 17-85 canon anytime...
I still believe this to be a steal of a lens!
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2009
|
|
saxologist
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $370.00
|
|
Pros:
|
light, great optics. Focus reasonably fast. Great contrast. 67mm filters A steal when you price this. 2.8 F stop....
|
|
Cons:
|
focus ring turns (be careful). Build better than middle grade Canon (17-85).
|
|
Comparing to my 17-85 IS. The focus is very good and the optics are better than 17-85. I rented 24-70L and was nice but too heavy and bulky. The optics on this lens are very close. I shot my daughters graduation with my 580exII and was very pleased with all shots but maybe one shot when in motion. The focus motor is fast but make more noise than USM. All in all I believe this is a steal. I also focus tested it when I bought it and it seems dead on, no complaints of image issues in any quadrants. I believe the QC has caught up and is fine. I am now considering 17-50 2.8 as an option. I am happy not having my L glass on during some shoots since its may get banged or dinged. I am pleased to have this on. My 70-200 f4 IS is still superior but not 3x the cost or image quality. I am now selling my 17-85. I highly recommend this lens (D40 here). For the L equivalent I am not prepared to lay down close to 1K. Next lens to consider is tokina 11-16, or 12-24(a steal as well). I hope this review helps others out there like me (hobbyist and occasionally published). 3rd party glass is worth a look. Oh yes 6yr US warranty, and 30day trial of lens(amazon)
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2009
|
|
saxologist
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $370.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build OK better than expected. Color and sharpness thus far very good. I tested it against focus chart at 2.8 and well focused so QC must be there. I believe this is a steal for the optics and the performance. I own L lenses as well and can't keep buying these beasts without breaking the bank...I was concerned but pricing was too good to be true. 30days to further investigate (Amazon)
|
|
Cons:
|
focus ring turns so be careful.
|
|
Great...great....great. I rented the 24-70L and was too heavy and IQ no better. Slightly faster focus but this is tack sharp..even 2.8 as tested today. I read many reviews....17-50 and 28-75 stand out as best buys and seem to beat more expensive alternatives....6yr warranty....we will see.
|
|
|
May 30, 2009
|
|
Chococat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 26, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 144
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $389.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It gets the job done effectively--bottom line, that's the best you can hope for, right?
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality is average, not great (but not bad, either--it's sturdy enough); admittedly the autofocus motor is not super fast.
|
|
I think this is a very good lens. Now, as context, understand that statement comes from a guy who had pretty much given up on zooms a long while back, has in fact largely given up on Canon's own lenses and has been using Zeiss primes, and returned the only other Tamron product he ever bought within 6 hours. So for me to state that I think it is good, well it means I'm impressed.
I bought this recently because I wanted a zoom to take with me on a trip to South America, and didn't want to spend too much because I wasn't sure whether I would want to keep using a zoom. I chose this one because it seemed to have a decent reputation for a reasonably priced consumer zoom. I find the results to be very good in all aspects--sharpness, color, corners, etc. I think it's strength is on the wide end. At 28mm even the corners on my copy hold together well (and that's on a full frame 5d II) and the center sharpness is great--honestly, this is better at 28mm than some of the lousy primes I have owned.
If you are a Canon shooter, there is always the inevitable comparison with the 24-70L, and quality vs. price, etc. Yes, I am a person who has owned the 24-70L. I am also one of the people who found it to be a major dissappointment. In fact, the 24-70L is pretty much the reason I gave up on zooms in the end--on a full frame I found the corners to be dreadful, and I found even the cheap primes to be an improvement. I honestly, sincerely think the copy of the Tamron that I have is better than that copy of the 24-70L--if the guy I sold it to offered to trade, I would say no. So in my opinion, based on my copy, I don't just think this is a better lens "for the price," I think it is simply a better lens. Obviously, there is the issue of sample variation--it is certainly possible (and I have always assumed) that I had a lousy copy of the 24-70L (of course, when someone pays $1200 for a lens, there is no excuse of sticking them with a lousy copy . . . ), and I might also have a great copy of the Tamron. Even if that is so, I can only assume that an average copy of the Tamron 28-75 is still a pretty good lens. Obviously, the L lens is built better and is faster, so if those are major concerns to you than you need the L lens, but if you are just interested in image qualities, I strongly recommend you take a look at the Tamron.
Regarding sample variation, since I had heard some conflicting reviews on this lens, when I went to the store to buy it I asked the clerk to bring all the copies he had out to me so I could test them and choose the one I wanted (the clerk knows me, and humors my eccentricities). I think that was a good move, because I did sincerely believe from looking at the images that the copy I chose was a tad better. Well, and obviously I feel I am getting very good results, so as it turned out I did pick a good copy. That's my one bit of advice for anyone buying a mass market, consumer type lens like this (or any lens, really)--copies can be different, and if you have the chance, don't just take the one the clerk hands you, ask to try multiple copies to see if there is one that might be better.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2009
|
|
bocaminus
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Apr 19, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 416
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, sharpness and build
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
I know many will disagree but this lens performs better than my 24-70L. Beside being lighter than a "brick", Tamron really shines in all aspects. The sharpness and color matching is absolutely fantastic. I have to say I didn't expect much from it but after few days of shooting and testing, IMO the lens outperforms many Canon L zoom counterparts. 67mm filter size on this lens in compassion to 72mm on 24-70L will save you even more $$$.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2008
|
|
gwaww
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 47
|
|
Review Date: Dec 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $365.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, light weight, very sharp (see comments)
|
|
Cons:
|
Had to get 3 before I got a good one.
|
|
Third times the charm. I had to get 3 of these to get a good one, but now it is stuck to my 5D. I get very sharp images with this one. Fist one soft, second one vignettes on lower left and upper right corners (???????), third one spectacular!!
|
|
|
Dec 1, 2008
|
|
Whitesmith
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp , Cheap, Usable range, fast 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is noisy but can't complain for the price. Tendency to suck dust but I think it's pretty normal for this kind of lens.
|
|
This is really a value for money. If you're budget is limited and looking for a decent all around/portrait lens, then look no further. My copy is very sharp wide open, nice contrast/saturation, and may not have the best bokeh around but has very decent quality.
If you need wider lens, then his brother 17-50 2.8 is another state of the art lens to check out and own.
However, if budget is not an issue, I'll think twice in getting 3rd party lenses.
On the other hand, being practical and the fact that I'm just a pure hobbyist... Tamron 28-75 2.8 or 17-50 2.8 is really one of the best thing that happened to camera world. I'm very happy to own and use one.
Highly recommended!!!
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2008
|
|
Sandeep Singh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 9, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at 2.8, light weight, macro
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow Noisy Autofocus, build quality, Glare,
|
|
After a lot of research and reading reviews I found this lens perfect for everyday needs I had. But may be either I had over expectations from reviews or nice photos from this lens, I wasnt impressed with poor color reproduction , slow noisy auto focus and no so sharp sharpness. But I was comparing it to wrong lens - 50 f/1.8 . AF, contrast, sharpness was not as good as compared to 50 f/1.8 At times photos would come good , at times they would be useless completely. I then borrowed my friend's canon 28-70 and compared photos side by side. 28-70 is built like a tank but it's AF weakness was revealed when I was snapping my 1 yr old son running around. tamron proved better in AF. It fares very well as macro, better than canon, MFD being only .33 m, which is very useful for me.
Canon hunted no less than tamron in dimly lighted areas. I might be wrong but 77mm thread should have been more useful.
at f/2.8 both lenses are same sharp at f/4 tamron shines marginally, at f/8 tamron is still leading.
Overall this is an f/4 lens. not that 2.8 is not usable but needs PP. Lastly doesnt look like a Professional lens but its the photos that matter.
Disclaimer: I am not a 'pro'
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2008
|
|
skibum5
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3655
|
|
Review Date: Oct 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $260.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
amazingly sharp, nothing beats it in this range corner to corner, very compact
|
|
Cons:
|
super slow AF, contrast a trace low compared to the best lenses
|
|
if it had a tad more contrast and faster AF nothing could touch it, the AF is almost absurdly slow at times though, aside from these two aspects ti would put the 24-70L to shame for incredibly less money
build is perfectly serviceable although nothing to write home about by any means but it's not like it will fall apart so it doesn't matter in the end.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2008
|
|
|
